Re: [Fsfe-uk] Fwd: Microsoft Research External Lecture: Dr Stefan Kooths, University of Muenster

[Robin Green]

I thought this was an amusing comment on the talk too (spotted
it on Groklaw):

Contradiction Alert!
Authored by: pbarritt on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 09:22 PM EST

Microsoft funded reports have now shown that:

1. OSS software is damaging to the economy in that it does
not produce income/wages for taxes.

2. OSS software has a higher TCO.

So if it costs more to own and use, where does the extra
cost go? I guess it couldn't be to pay wages or purchase
services.

Oh well, never mind. I'm still trying to figure out why
SCO will declare a million in income for ever dollar the
stock price falls. Fun with numbers...

-- 
Robin

> ----- Forwarded message -----
> 
> Subject: Microsoft Research External Lecture: Dr Stefan Kooths, University of 
> Muenster
> 
> MICROSOFT RESEARCH LECTURE
> This is a PUBLIC lecture 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> TITLE: The Economics of Open Source Software - Prospects, Pitfalls and
> Politics
> SPEAKER: Dr Stefan Kooths
> INSTITUTION: University of Muenster
> HOST: Alexander Braendle, University Relations
> DATE: 15 January 2004
> TIME: 13:30 - 14:30
> MEETING ROOM: Lecture Theatre
> ADDRESS: Microsoft Research Ltd, 7 J J Thomson Avenue (Off Madingley
> Road), Cambridge
> 
> 
> Open Source Software does not represent a suitable alternative to the
> commercial software market from an economic point of view, neither in
> terms of creating value-added nor in terms of economic efficiency. OSS
> does not create any new value-added potential, and offers only a
> fraction of the opportunities of the commercial market. The impact of
> OSS on sales and employment are therefore less than the effects of
> commercial software. Furthermore the de facto free availability of
> GPL-licensed software, and hence the lack of a market price, have
> far-reaching economic consequences that are elaborated in the
> presentation. As far as packaged software is concerned its free
> availability very much limits the creation of profits, income, jobs or
> taxes. The loss of turnover in the area of software sales cannot be
> fully recovered with services linked to the software. So-called
> complementary OSS-business models work in the smaller customized
> software sector only. The incomes earned there are substitutive and not
> additional to those created in the commercial software sector. The lack
> of cost-reflecting prices for GPL-licensed standard software also has
> consequences for the market process as the pricing mechanism is
> associated with an important information and coordination function in a
> market economy. If there is no price, and hence no decisive guide figure
> for a market, it is, for example, more difficult to identify customer
> requirements. Further problems can be identified when it comes to the
> allocation of resources, productivity-oriented factor compensation and
> incentives for innovations. The lower value-added potential and the
> reduced efficiency of coordination are weighty economic arguments. They
> demonstrate quite clearly that the promotion of open-source software
> cannot be an economically justifiable role for the state. 
> 
>  
> ________________________________
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> -- 
> ``It's not a bomb. It's a device that explodes.''
>   (possibly-apocryphal statement by French spokesman,
>   before the 1995 nuclear tests)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Free-sklyarov-uk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mailman.xenoclast.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov-uk
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Fsfe-uk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk


-- 
Robin

"it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves,
something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago..."
 - Howard Strauss writing in Syllabus magazine
  http://www.syllabus.com/article.asp?id=8460